Well, good afternoon, ladies and . I'd like to talk with this afternoon you about genetically foods, GM foods. And among things put some points for against their use by human .

OK. Well, it's a technical subject. Don't be put by the language. It's becoming and more familiar because this a hotly debated issue. But 's look first just at the of this talk. We'll have look at the so-called gene , but very much in outline, on to have a look some examples of genetically modified , look at some arguments for use, and some against, and 'll add one or two comments, about assumptions in some of arguments to suggest a line approach, and I'll add something way of, not so much conclusion, as a final comment all this.

OK. Well, the gene revolution then. Well, is genetics? A starting point be a dictionary definition. Dictionaries their uses, don't they and least it's a starting point. the Shorter Oxford English dictionary example describes genetics as, and quote, "that part of biological which is concerned with the of heredity and variation," "heredity variation," end of quote. Now, , such a study should include account of natural processes and 's largely what it was, until recently. But, we shall be in this talk, not with processes, but with recent aspects human intervention in such processes. say recent aspects, since we're concerned here with the selective by which humans have been plant and animal genes for thousand years or so. Rather, shall be considering the impact laboratory procedures which change the character of plants and animals as human foods. I'll just that, the impact of laboratory which change the genetic character plants and animals used as foods. Now, such genetic engineering a very important part of biotechnology industry, which, of course, seen explosive growth in recent .

OK. Let's just go a moment. There's a picture of Crick and Watson who the code of DNA. There are with a model of model, as it were, for nature of the building blocks human beings. Well, all that's years ago.

OK. Let's next to some examples of foods. Now some genetically modified GM foods have been in production of course for some . Now one example, already famous the controversy, one example is beans, soya beans. These have genetically modified in the Unites of America to make the more resistant to chemical herbicides, make plants more resistant to herbicides. Now the purpose of herbicide is of course to weeds. That's really what it . It is literally a plant but it is used by to kill weeds, the unwanted . So the GM soya plants , then, while the other plants the fields die. Weed control a main problem of course farmers and the use of crops, along with chemical herbicides, a neat way to solve problem. It would of course the yields of soya beans. 'll just repeat those points. It a neat way to solve problem and hence to increase yields, the crop weights, of soya beans. OK, still on beans. Why are they so ? Well, they are one of world's main human foods. They're very rich source of vegetable , and so as human food alternative to the protein from . And used as animal feed, is also itself a source meat. Now, soya is present a wide range of manufactured foodstuffs, such as bread, noodles oils. Clearly then, more efficient of soya beans could help the world's food problem, or it is argued. Indeed, this exactly what the inventors of GM soya bean claim. Now inventors are Monsanto, a giant States chemical firm. Monsanto also the weed killer, it's called , the herbicide, the weed killer, , to which the GM bean resistant. The firm claims that the GM seed and the killer are used together, the of soya will rise by percent. Now forty percent of world's soya is produced in USA and the GM bean for an increasing proportion of .

OK. GM beans are one example of GM food . Another example is maize. Well, it is, maize. It's called in the United States. An difference in the language. We it maize in British English. American English it's corn, corn the cob, of course, as know. This is modified genetically make it resistant to a killer, a pesticide, with which growing crop is then sprayed. guards against insect pests. Again, yields are increased. So, I've soya at some length and . Let's look at a third crop already in production. I'll mention it, tomatoes. Or, in States English, tomatoes. Tomatoes in English. These are genetically engineered slow down the ripening process, engineered to slow down the process, and used, for example, the making of tomato puree. fourth example is insecticide resistant rape. You see the yellow in southeast England at this of year, if you travel train. This is the oilseed whose acreage has grown very rapidly. OK. Other crops are experimented on, as well. They insect resistant and virus resistant and pest resistant lettuces and , and slow ripening raspberries and .

OK. So much for GM plants. Now, even more and less commonly so far, only plants but animals can genetically engineered for useful qualities. , for example, so-called transgenic pigs the United States have carried for the human growth syndrome. that means they grow faster leaner than normal pigs, a more like us.

, now, we've seen some examples existing and proposed, or possible, foodstuffs. Now we turn to some arguments for and then the use of GM foods. this is one of the contentious, one of the most issues in the world today. 'll just repeat this. I'm suggesting 's one of the most contentious in the world today. OK, let's just review, without many . I'm afraid this is not to show prejudice against the for GM foods, but let's look at some of the for GM foodstuffs. Now, they're quite simple. The first is productivity can be increased so more food can be produced cheaply. Productivity can be increased that more food can be more cheaply. Well, you've seen example that Monsanto claims that GM soya beans, along with of its weed killer can yields by seven percent. Now means the amount of soya on any unit of land. seven percent is a big isn't it, it's a big . The second argument is that increase in the human population such that only through GM can food production be increased keep up. I'll just repeat . The increase in the human is such that only through techniques can food production be so as to keep up. argument is, of course, closely to the first, the argument productivity. A third argument now favour of GM foods is foodstuffs can be brought to in good condition and have longer shelf life. They can brought to market in good and have a longer shelf . Now an example of this be the slower ripening raspberries I mentioned and all the more slowly ripening crops.

. These arguments then are the of the case for GM . They are simple to understand, I've already suggested and they of course be taken very . Let's now look at an of claims put forward for productivity as a way of to meet the world's food , the food demands of a growing human population. The Asian Bank, very recently, commissioned a on the new technology. It published in 1999, this year, the title Rural Asia Beyond Green Revolution. It warned that heavy investment in genetic engineering, world's poorest countries might be to feed their growing populations. 'll just repeat that. Without heavy in genetic engineering, the world's countries might be unable to their growing populations. Now, presenting report in Manila in the , Dr Peter Hazel of the Food Policy Research Institute said, I quote, "we expect to increasing discontent about the growing in life and in some a growing danger of social and violence over the use the remaining resources, especially in Asia." I'll just repeat that, " dangers of social conflict and over the use of the resources." That's taken from a newspaper report. Well, what's going ? We're being threatened with civil , with the collapse of law order in a large part the world. Now as the of the rice-eating world continued grow, so the report maintained, of the crop would have rise by seventy percent by year 2025, 2025. I mention eating, because, of course, rice the staple food of the heavily populated countries of south east Asia. Despite urbanisation, despite, is, the rapid movement of from country to city, and growing population of people in cities in any case, so urbanisation, there were now two rural people, many very poor, Asia, and there would be hundred millions more by 2025, the report maintains.

, the so-called green revolution of 1960s in south and east had introduced more productive seed along with fertilisers, chemical fertilisers. , one of those people responsible that green revolution, a Nobel winner, a Nobel laureate, Norman was at the Manila conference, he backed the report's findings. noted that the world's population already six billions and that hundred millions of these faced hunger. Now, as it happens for some time past, the Rice Research Institute in Manila, Manila, is developing highly productive pest resistant super rice, they it super rice, highly productive pest resistant super rice, using materials from some of the 's eighty thousand rice species. Scientists that the new GM rice increase yields from 2 tons 6 tons per acres, 2 to six tons per acre. think they use the term so that English people, British , can understand. Well, you don't to be a rocket engineer realise that from two to is a threefold increase. I it's a dramatic claim isn't . So very large claims are then for GM foodstuffs. And scientists claim that they are , that is, the GM foodstuffs necessary, in order for the of the world to be .

Well, so much for summary of some of the for the use of GM . Now, let's turn next to arguments against the use of foods. We've seen the arguments are quite strong. Now, let's at the arguments against. We'll note again some of these . It's a very complex issue course. First, there is a fear that in manipulating the make up of living things, beings may set off processes they cannot control. I'll repeat . In manipulating the genetic make of living things human beings set off processes which they control. The consequences are incalculable. don't know quite what might . Yet the processes are presented scientists as their mastery over . Well, here is the story, the scare story in the recently, or not, mutant crops the first super weed. The is, you see, that if is cross-pollination, weeds themselves may resistant to the chemical herbicides. that would be a very problem, a terrible problem. The is made here of course, is from a laboratory with warning - this house contains plants - that the researchers have been keen to take against accidental release of genetically organisms. We don't know quite would happen.

OK. The are not taken seriously enough, is argued. Or, the risks simply ignored. GM food technology, 's said, is simply a special of the more general arrogance science and technology. The arrogance science and technology, they don't they can be wrong. This a line taken, for example, a writer called Beck, in book entitled, provocatively enough, Organised , put out by the Polity in London, in 1994. It's in a very interesting book Ben Mepham called Food Ethics, it is, published two or years ago now. It's edited Mepham. It would be better, claims, as I know, I've in claim this, for example, adopt the precautionary principle, as 's called. We hear more and , quite rightly, perhaps, we hear and more about the precautionary . Now, that would mean, not soldiering on, with research until is proven damage, but anticipating avoiding risks.

All right. much for the first argument. second argument against GM foods related to that first general , the uncertainty argument, as it . Now this second argument is argument from biodiversity. A long , the argument runs like this. is the richness of species plants and animals in a self-controlling ecosystem. I'll repeat that, richness of species of plants animals in a balanced self-controlling . Or, I might add, of , what's left of such ecosystems existing farming. Agriculture, then, it's , should cooperate with such processes than seeking to replace them. herbicides used along with GM such as soya would reduce number of plant species in and so reduce insect life bird life. I'll just repeat . They'd reduce the number of species in the fields and , and indeed animal species, and reduce insect life and bird . Insect life and bird life of course on the plant . In effect, then, there would a wholesale attack on nature. 's the headline to go with point. Now, such a view received support from the UK 's own chief scientist. In April , Sir Robert May, here's his , who had formerly supported GM , told MPs that the techniques become another tool to dominate , could become another tool to nature, and so undermine the of living things in the . Dozens of species of birds, and plants, had already been by intensive farming and GM would quicken the pace of damage. Giving evidence to the of Commons environmental audit select , he added, I quote, "I 't believe that what's good for is good for the world," of quote, as reported in Daily Mail.

OK, this us to a third argument GM crops. This argument sets to refute Monsanto's claim that crops are necessary to provide food the world needs. This course is, I suppose, one the strongest arguments for GM . And as we've seen, this a support, this is a , supported by scientists reporting to Asian Development Bank. Now, the refutation goes something like this. major chemical firms such as , not only patent the GM , but also the herbicides and to go with them. I'll that. They patent the seeds also the herbicides and pesticides. , in the case of GM , goes further and requires farmers buy its own herbicide if GM seeds are used. Now, commercial ventures, highly profitable for chemical firms, are semi-monopolistic, it argued. In the less developed , only the wealthier farmers would and traditional agriculture would be . Far from solving problems of poverty and malnutrition, the new would accentuate them. Indeed, some the hungriest nations of the are themselves opposed to GM . Again in 1999, talks on international treaty to regulate trade GM produce collapsed in Cartagena Colombia. The USA had accused countries of endangering free trade. Tewalde Egziabher, a senior third negotiator at the talks, and a senior Ethiopian government official, afterwards that the less developed were, quote, "absolutely united," unquote, resisting US plans to, quote, " what we eat," unquote. I'll repeat that, the less developed were absolutely united in resisting plans to decide what we . The Brazilian state of Rio do Sul has already said it would ban planting of GM soya, and that state a big producer in South .

Well, let's come to fourth argument against GM foods. is that public opinion is them. Recently, big food stores Britain have complained that they've losing the GM propaganda war. 've begun to change their minds this. In the UK for , there is deep unease so Monsanto had to abandon its attempt to convert public opinion its side. Widespread media coverage played a part. And of not all of this coverage sensational as in the newspaper of so-called Frankenstein foods. But, we're on it, let's just a look at some of rather sensational reporting. Here we "Frankenstein food fiasco." There's the modified scarecrow. Here are some lively vegetables in a cartoon. even Mr Tony Blair, bless , has been described, would you it, as a monster. Because himself had said that "I GM foods," the so-called Frankenstein "and it's safe." He came in favour of GM foods against press hysteria. Well, here his reward. There is Blair Frankenstein. And here is Blair Frankenstein along with his wife. 're eating a Chinese meal but don't know what's in it, , it might have some GM . Or again a multiplicity of . Here is a rather animated and some stories which, if , are very serious indeed. Are true? A crippled mother, a mother, victim of the world's disease triggered by genetic modification. here she is in her .

OK. So much sensationalism. Now, sensitive to public and their own sales targets, of Britain's biggest food companies , Tesco and Unilever, have said plan to take GM foods the shelves. Well. Here again press headlines to do with . The Daily Mail, they run genetic food watch, "supermarket chain Unilever in pledge to put ' concerns first." Well, the chain Tesco, one of the big . Here, of course, are some the foods you can buy supermarkets without labelling, we don't quite what's in them, so said. "The food giants call a ban on GM animal ." What's in the meat that buy in supermarkets? Does it human hormones in it? Are eating ourselves and so on so on? OK. "Supermarkets, supermarkets to ditch mutant food." And 've even had Paul McCartney in and over this. Linda McCartney, wife, who died of course recently, had branched into health , by way of business. And 's something called Linda McCartney mince , which, I believe, is some of vegetarian product, which you make vegetarian sausages with. OK. , unfortunately, a blow to Sir McCartney, GM soya is found Linda's veggie sausages and here our Paul thanking Newsnight, the programme, for bringing all this his attention. "We are unfortunately in a GM world. I we weren't," and so on. he went on in this . "We dispute the findings at but if the claims are the problem will have arisen the fact that last year soya and non-GM soya were mixed by some producers." Well, course, this is a very problem, you can't tell what's the soya that you eat. "'s very difficult for companies like ," says McCartney. "I believe people what Linda stood for and know what I stand for I think that they know if any company will do about it, it's us." Well, , back to publicity. If you've the Beatles on your side, certainly get publicity. And to this off, let's just notice Tesco, the supermarket, is cooperating Greenpeace, the environmental pressure group. this is a strange new , but there we are, they're with Tesco's effort to remove foods from Tesco's stores. The thing of course is to out which are the GM , which foods contain GM foods. . Now a fifth argument, I'll to go a little more here, a fifth argument against foods is about bias, prejudice decision making, bias in decision . It goes something like this. sit on committees which advise policy makers. The scientists tend have a professional or financial in the technology on which report. Well, as the newspapers see it, a clash of . They may have links with companies which lobby in any remorselessly. Even government ministers may a financial interest in the they help to decide on. the UK, there was something a scandal when Lord Sainsbury, billionaire and science minister in government and a member of cabinet biotechnology committee, was found have owned for eleven years company with patent rights over key gene in GM crops, soya. I'll just repeat that, 's a bit of a mouthful, 't it? He was found to owned for eleven years the with patent rights over a gene in GM crops, including . Well, that's all we've time on the arguments against, and then are some of them simple form.

Well, I I'd make some comments, I I'd make some comments towards end. Like most other people don't really know what to . This is a very technical, and confusing thing for non-experts reach judgements on. So, how we to judge the strengths weaknesses of the arguments for against? Well, I'll suggest that useful habit in such cases to ask what assumptions are made in any of the involved? What assumptions are being , what are people assuming to true? For example, do scientists that a highly technological culture here to stay, that a technological culture is here to ? Do the biotechnology companies and Asian Development Bank's advisors assume suitable social and economic arrangements slip into place to go the new science based technologies? 'll repeat that. Suitable social and arrangements will slip into place go with the new science technologies. Is there a danger the other side of simply that if an enterprise is profitable, it is likely to harm. Might a government minister retain some objectivity despite links the biotechnology industry? Are we assume that there's some sort evil conspiracy? I think we to be very careful.

what can we say, finally, they say, by way of ? Well, whatever the answer to questions, one thing is perhaps now clear. GM food issues not simply scientific and technological. , they are set in the predictable world of human predicaments, societies and human values. Now, may have picked up the newspaper that's now around on tube stations and tube trains Metro. And is it today's , today's Metro, Mark, has the "inquiry into GM food could 40 years." So the thing's to remain topical for some time to come.

Well , thank you for your attention. 'd be very grateful if you any comments, objections, questions, charges bias or anything else. Who like to comment or ask question?